Please help us continue to provide you with free, quality journalism by turning off your ad blocker on our site.

Thank you for signing in.

If this is your first time registering, please check your inbox for more information about the benefits of your Forbes account and what you can do next!

I agree to receive occasional updates and announcements about Forbes products and services. You may opt out at any time.

I'd like to receive the Forbes Daily Dozen newsletter to get the top 12 headlines every morning.

Forbes takes privacy seriously and is committed to transparency. We will never share your email address with third parties without your permission. By signing in, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Statement.

For years, the American Academy Of Pediatrics (AAP) has adopted an on/off switch mentality when it comes to children and screen time. It used to recommend that children, ages two and under, have absolutely no exposure to screens. For older kids, the AAP recommended limiting ‘screen time' to just two hours a day. Now, the guidelines have been changed so that they reflect a more nuanced approach.

(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert, File)

It is about time. I suspect that most parents found it almost impossible to abide by the old guidelines. These days, there are monitors above the pumps at gas stations and always-on television in the electronics aisle at
Target. Screen abstinence would pretty much be like sentencing a newborn to house arrest. And older kids, as any parent of a 10-year-old can tell you, will blow through their two hours before their Minecraft sessions even get going. Fortunately, the AAP finally realized it needed to keep up with the times.

Screens are now a ubiquitous part of our lives. It is a technology that has been completely integrated into the human experience. At this point, worrying about exposure to screens is like worrying about exposure to agriculture, indoor plumbing, the written word, or automobiles. For better or worse, the transition to screen based digital information technologies has already happened and now resistance is futile. The screen time rhetoric that accompanied the television—when this technology was still in its formative age—is no longer relevant.

The AAP now seems to agree. “In a world where ‘screen time’ is becoming simply ‘time,’” the update reads, “our policies must evolve or become obsolete. The public needs to know that the Academy’s advice is science-driven, not based merely on the precautionary principle.” Of course, that’s exactly what most experts in children and digital media previously thought, that the AAP guidelines seemed like they were the result of familiar technophobic paranoia that always accompanies new technologies.

In his excellent book Speed Limits: Where Time Went And Why We Have So Little Left, Mark C. Taylor reminds us that such a precautionary attitude always seems to accompany new innovations. “Like today’s parents concerned about the psychological and physical effects of their kids playing video games, nineteenth-century physicians worried about the effect of people sitting in railway cars for hours watching the world rush by in a stream of images that seemed to be detached from real people and actual things.” It seems there’s something about the fast flicker of images that continuously terrifies us. My
Facebook feed is, ironically, full of memes suggesting I put down my phone and “just slow down.” Taylor agrees; his book is about the dangers of speed. He traces our historic relationship to the pace of technology. For example, he describes people’s initial responses to the steam-engine: “some physicians went so far as to maintain that the experience of speed caused ‘neurasthenia, neuralgia, nervous dyspepsia, early tooth decay, and even premature baldness.’”

Speed, it seems, causes anxiety. Some of the time we’re worried about going too fast. At other times, not fast enough. The AAP, in this instance, seems to believe it had trouble keeping pace. “Scientific research and policy statements lag behind the pace of digital innovation,” the update reads. “Case in point: The 2011 AAP policy statementMedia Use by Children Younger Than Two Yearswas drafted prior to the first generation iPad and explosion of apps aimed at young children.” Certainly, these twelve new guidelines seem far more grounded in the current reality of digital life. But when it comes to innovation, technology, and human progress, even the scientific method can’t provide the objectivity needed to escape the psychological burden of our paranoid default settings.

Here are the AAP’s revised guidelines on children and screen time:

Media is just another environment. Children do the same things they have always done, only virtually. Like any environment, media can have positive and negative effects.

Parenting has not changed.The same parenting rules apply to your children’s real and virtual environments. Play with them. Set limits; kids need and expect them. Teach kindness. Be involved. Know their friends and where they are going with them.

Role modeling is critical.Limit your own media use, and model online etiquette. Attentive parenting requires face time away from screens.

We learn from each other.Neuroscience research shows that very young children learn best via two-way communication. “Talk time” between caregiver and child remains critical for language development. Passive video presentations do not lead to language learning in infants and young toddlers. The more media engender live interactions, the more educational value they may hold (e.g., a toddler chatting by video with a parent who is traveling). Optimal educational media opportunities begin after age 2, when media may play a role in bridging the learning achievement gap.

Content matters.The quality of content is more important than the platform or time spent with media. Prioritize how your child spends his time rather than just setting a timer.

Curation helps.More than 80,000 apps are labeled as educational, but little research validates their quality (Hirsh-PasekKPsych Science2015;16:3-34 Google Scholar). An interactive product requires more than “pushing and swiping” to teach. Look to organizations like Common Sense Media (www.commonsensemedia.org) that review age-appropriate apps, games and programs.

Co-engagement counts.Family participation with media facilitates social interactions and learning. Play a video game with your kids. Your perspective influences how your children understand their media experience. For infants and toddlers, co-viewing is essential.

Set limits.Tech use, like all other activities, should have reasonable limits. Does your child’s technology use help or hinder participation in other activities?

It’s OK for your teen to be online.Online relationships are integral to adolescent development. Social media can support identity formation. Teach your teen appropriate behaviors that apply in both the real and online worlds. Ask teens to demonstrate what they are doing online to help you understand both content and context.

Kids will be kids.Kids will make mistakes using media. These can be teachable moments if handled with empathy. Certain aberrations, however, such as sexting or posting self-harm images, signal a need to assess youths for other risk-taking behaviors.

I am full-time father of two little boys, Senior Fellow for the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, and I teach in Temple University's Intellectual Heritage…

I am full-time father of two little boys, Senior Fellow for the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, and I teach in Temple University's Intellectual Heritage Department. I speak internationally about edTech, game based learning, and 21st Century parenting. I hold a PhD in Depth Psychology, specializing in Jungian/archetypal psychology and phenomenology/Heideggerian philosophy. In particular, I study the ways video games (and other new forms of interactive storytelling) teach us to make sense of the world. Email: www.jordanshapiro.org/contact